PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.1983 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Bhatinda under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short the Act) whereby he accepted the appeal of Amar Nath tenant respondent against an order dated 11.8.1981 passed by the learned Rent Controller Bhatinda.

(2.) THERE is a shopping centre in the complex of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bhatinda, which is owned by the Punjab State Electricity Board petitioner. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in shop No. 1 of this centre. All the shops in this centre are in the normal course meant for catering to the needs of the consumers who are inhabitants of the residential colony of the Thermal Plant which is quite close by. The respondent made an application under Section 10 of the Act alleging that there is a door-way between the residential colony and the shopping centre to approach the shop of the respondent. The petitioner some time prior to the filing of the application locked the said door without any just and sufficient reason and has thus obstructed the passage natural light and air towards his shop. As a result, this passage has been closed to the inhabitants of the residential colony to approach his shop. The application was contested by the petitioner. It was, inter alia contended that an earlier petition filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Act on the same cause of action had been dismissed. Therefore, the present application was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). On merits, it was submitted that there are two main gates for approach to the shopping centre and the inhabitants of the colony approach the centre including the shop of the respondent through the same. It was admitted that there is a door near the shop of the respondent. The same was, however, closed to bar the entry of undesirable persons. If the door is ordered to be opened it will entail extra expenditure for the petitioner. In that situation, it shall have to post additional permanent security gurad to check the entry of people through this door. It was maintained that by closing this door, no amenity available to the respondent has been taken away. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on the record. On facts more or less the parties are agreed. The main access to the shopping centre is through the two gates. The members of the public including the inhabitants of the residential colony come to the shopping centre of which the shop in possession of the respondent is an integral part through these two gates. No doubt, there is a small door-way near the shop of the respondent. Its door had been locked by the petitioner. The explanation for doing so which has been set out in its reply is that it has been so done for the reasons of security. If this door is left open, an additional guard shall have to be posted to keep a watch on the persons entering through this gate. The learned Appellate Authority has dilated in some detail on the question whether this door-way is an "amenity" or a "facility" available to the respondent. While coming to the conclusion that it is an amenity, which has been wrongfully taken away from the respondent, the learned Appellate Authority has not kept in view the explanation set out by the petitioner in its reply which was reinforced by way of evidence adduced on the record. This was not a correct approach. Section 10 of the Act lays down that no landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. This means that when the landlord satisfied the Rent Controller that the amenity enjoyed by the tenant has been withheld for just and sufficient cause, the Rent Controller shall not make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenity to the tenant. The learned Appellate Authority has not taken into account the stand of the petitioner that this door-way had to be locked to prevent entry of undesirable persons into the complex. It has also overlooked the fact that there are two main gates which are in fact meant for aggress and ingress to and from the shopping centre and the customers can and do approach the shop in occupation of the respondent through these two gates. The door way that has been closed and locked by the petitioner for reason of security was not an indispensable amenity for the respondent. The provisions of section 10 of the Act are, therefore, not attracted.